PENROSE v. HART, 1 U.S. 378 (1788)

U.S. Supreme Court

PENROSE v. HART, 1 U.S. 378 (1788)

1 U.S. 378 (Dall.)

Penrose
v.
Hart

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

December Term, 1788

On a rule to shew cause why the Judgment confessed by warrant of Attorney in this case should not be opened, Fisher stated that several partial payments had been made by the Defendant,

Page 1 U.S. 378, 379

which the Plaintiff had applied first to the discharge of the arrearages of interest; whereas he insisted, that it ought first to have been deducted from the principal debt.

But Shippen, President, said, that the practice had been otherwise; and he thought with great reason and propriety. He remembered to have heard of an old decision when Logan was Chief Justice, in which it was expressly settled, that money paid on account of a bond, should first be applied to discharge the interest due at the time of the payment, and the residue, if any, credited towards satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the Bar had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.

Lewis, for the Plaintiff, insisted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his assertion.*

Footnotes

[Footnote *] See ant. 124.




U.S. Supreme Court

PENROSE v. HART, 1 U.S. 378 (1788)

1 U.S. 378 (Dall.)

Penrose
v.
Hart

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

December Term, 1788

On a rule to shew cause why the Judgment confessed by warrant of Attorney in this case should not be opened, Fisher stated that several partial payments had been made by the Defendant,

Page 1 U.S. 378, 379

which the Plaintiff had applied first to the discharge of the arrearages of interest; whereas he insisted, that it ought first to have been deducted from the principal debt.

But Shippen, President, said, that the practice had been otherwise; and he thought with great reason and propriety. He remembered to have heard of an old decision when Logan was Chief Justice, in which it was expressly settled, that money paid on account of a bond, should first be applied to discharge the interest due at the time of the payment, and the residue, if any, credited towards satisfaction of the principal. By this rule, the Gentlemen of the Bar had uniformly governed their calculations before the Revolution.

Lewis, for the Plaintiff, insisted that the practice was the same at the present day, and appealed to the Attornies in Court, who confirmed his assertion.*

Footnotes

[Footnote *] See ant. 124.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.